The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) has initiated registration for the NEET UG 2023 special stray vacancy counseling, aimed at filling more than 1,000 vacant MBBS/BDS/BSc Nursing seats. Candidates looking to participate in this round can register on the official website, mcc.nic.in, with the registration window open until November 5. From November 1 to 5, candidates can also make their selections and lock their preferences. The results of seat allotment for the NEET UG 2023 special stray vacancy counseling will be posted on the official website, mcc.nic.in, on November 7.

Students are required to report to their respective colleges between November 8 and 15. The MCC has instructed state counseling authorities to manage the seat processing for the special stray vacancy round of states after removing candidates who were already allocated seats in the MCC’s special stray vacancy round.

“It is pertinent to mention that this Special Stray Vacancy Round will be the last round for undergraduate courses for the academic year 2023. The details of the vacant AIQ seats are available on the MCC website (www.mcc.nic.in). Candidates may contact state counseling authorities for vacant state quota seats,” the official release states.

NEET UG Counselling 2023: Key steps to follow for registration

Go to the official website, mcc.nic.in.Click on the ‘registration’ link.Enter your NEET UG roll number, password, and security pin to log in.Fill out the application form and make the fee payment.Go through the application form and download it for future reference.

NEET UG Counselling 2023: Following documents are required

NEET UG admit card and rank cardCandidate’s photographCandidate’s signatureDate of birth certificate (Class 10 pass certificate)Qualification certificate (Class 12 marksheet or passing certificate)Category certificateCharacter certificateMedical fitness certificateIdentity proof (Aadhaar card, passport, voter ID, PAN card, driver’s license, ration card)

Key points for the special stray vacancy round:

Eligibility for participation:

Candidates without any prior seat allocation in the All India Quota or State Quota are eligible to take part in the special stray vacancy round.
Candidates who were allocated seats in MCC Round-3 or later but did not accept them are not eligible to participate.

Security deposit:

The security deposit of candidates who do not accept their allocated seats during the special stray vacancy round will be forfeited.
Such candidates will also face disqualification from appearing in the NEET exam the following year.

Sharing of data:

Data regarding candidates allocated seats in the special stray vacancy round conducted by MCC will be shared with the respective states.
Candidates who receive seats through MCC will be disqualified from seeking admission through state counseling.

A group of landowners say a Silicon Valley-backed company trying to build a sustainable city northeast of San Francisco used unfair and “strong-armed” tactics to force farmers to sell their land, including pitting family members against each other, court documents show.

The details emerged on Friday as part of a lawsuit the company, Flannery Associates LLC, filed in May in District Court in Sacramento, alleging various farmers conspired to inflate the value of their land by $170 million. The landowners deny the claim and are seeking to dismiss the suit.

The latest allegations, contained in a report on a conference held by both parties in September, provide the most complete account to date of the landowners’ accusations against Flannery, which has backing from former Sequoia Capital Chairman Mike Moritz, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, among others.

The defendants say Flannery coerced farmers who didn’t want to sell to give up their land, forced property sales by evicting farmers and terminating leases, misled landowners and used the costly expense of litigation to get them to sell, according to the filing.

A Flannery spokesperson, in an email to Bloomberg, said that the company has specific evidence of price-fixing and that it’s offered reasonable settlements to individuals and is willing to settle with the remaining defendants. 

In one instance, the defendants claim, seven of eight landowners within the same family wished to continue to farm, while one wanted to sell. Flannery then allegedly employed a “divide-and-conquer” plan by purchasing the one-eighth share and suing the other seven family members to obtain the remaining shares, according to the filing.

To date, the Delaware-based company has spent about $800 million to purchase at least 52,000 acres of agricultural land, becoming the area’s biggest landowner. It is seeking $510 million in damages from the landowners, or triple the amount allegedly inflated by price fixing. 

The company’s plan to build a new city called California Forever, a walkable, green community that would create thousands of jobs, was revealed in late August by the New York Times and other media outlets. The project is led by Jan Sramek, a 36-year-old former Goldman Sachs trader. It has faced backlash from some local city leaders and politicians, who have expressed concerns over the lack of transparency in the process.

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has claimed the Lok Sabha ethics committee that is looking into the cash-for-query controversy does not have powers to examine allegations of alleged criminality. She released her response today that she had prepped to give to the committee tomorrow when she appears before them. This, Ms Moitra said, was because the “ethics committee deemed it fit to release my summons to the media…”

“… I think it is important that I too release my letter to the committee before the ‘hearing’ tomorrow,” Ms Moitra said in a post on X.

In a letter to the committee chairperson Vinod Kumar Sonkar, Ms Moitra claimed the absence of this power was deliberately kept that way by “our nation’s founders” to prevent misuse of committees by government that enjoy brute majority in parliament.

She also repeated her demand to cross-examine businessman Darshan Hiranandani. The businessman has alleged Ms Moitra took questions from him to ask in parliament, and also admitted he used Ms Moitra’s parliamentary login ID and password to post questions from Dubai – a situation, if proved, will mean a breach of privilege and lead to her suspension from parliament.

In the post on X today, Ms Moitra said the parliamentary ethics committee may not be the “appropriate forum to examine allegations of alleged criminality”.

“I wish to respectfully remind you that parliamentary committees do not have criminal jurisdiction and have no mandate to investigate alleged criminality. This can only be done by law enforcement agencies. This check was specifically created by our nation’s founders to prevent the slightest misuse of committees by governments enjoying a brute majority in parliament,” Ms Moitra said in a letter to the ethics committee chairperson Vinod Kumar Sonkar.

Since Ethics Committee deemed it fit to release my summons to the media I think it is important I too release my letter to the Committee before my “hearing” tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/A8MwFRsImk

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) November 1, 2023

Supreme Court lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, on whose complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the entire case rests, was cross-examined by the ethics committee on October 26, while BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who led the call to investigate the allegation that Ms Moitra gave her parliament login ID to the businessman, was allowed to explain his allegations.

Referring to the CBI complaint, Mr Dubey had written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and levelled cash-for-query allegations against Ms Moitra. The Trinamool MP has called the Supreme Court lawyer her “jilted ex”.

Ms Moitra, one of the fiercest critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP, will appear before the ethics committee tomorrow. She asked the committee to ensure there is “no room for political partisanship” in their functioning.

She alleged the committee has not made any code of conduct for MPs to follow.

“It is important to note that till date the committee on ethics has not formulated any code of conduct for members and in fact the committee has not even had any sittings in the past two years. I wish to most respectfully point out that in view of the lack of a structured code of conduct, it is all the more important that each case be dealt with in an objective and fair manner…” the Trinamool Congress MP said in the letter to the ethics committee chairperson.

The ethics committee will give a report to the Lok Sabha Speaker “as early as possible”, people with direct knowledge of the matter told NDTV last week, referring to the Pawan Bansal committee that gave its report in just two weeks in December 2005 in the infamous cash-for-questions scam when the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was in power in the centre.